House Minority Leader Kevin Mc Carthy Holds Weekly News Conference CSPAN February 13, 2020 6:47pm-7:00pm EST
mr. mccarthy: good morning. the age-old question that voters consider, are you better off than you were four years ago? that begs to all americans today, what is the answer to that question? it's overwhelming. we just came back with a couple surveys. over 60% say they're better off than they were three years ago. higher than the last four election cycles where an incumbent president was running. about 60% say they are better off financially than just a year ago. tied for an all-time high last reached in 1999. three in four americans are even more optimistic about the future. the highest level in more than 40 years. and people are just happier, nine in 10 are satisfied with their personal life. the highest mark in four decades. so as we look to these top lines, the work from this administration, the work about tax and others that made our
economy stronger, wages higher, and america happier. what's interesting to me, i watched the democrats with speaker pelosi had to have an emergency meeting. what to do with an election coming and no agenda passed utside of impeachment. o they too held to their old beliefs, fake the facts because the economy is flourishing. try to abide by lies about the economy to convince the media to convince the american public that they are not doing better. but there are not all of them following along with this. we have eric swalwell, if they can't impeach the president, they'll just impeach anybody else in the administration. that's a very sad moment in time of where we are, when nine out of 10 americans believe they're happy with their personal life. 60%, they're better off financially than they were a year ago. and 60% say they are better off than they were three years ago. that's fabulous in the work that
we've been doing. let me stop there. open it up for questions, omments. reporter: a.g. barr, his role in the -- [indiscernible] -- coming before the house, as far as what the president did, do you think the president should have sent that tweet and is he interfering in a case involving a friend of his who is indicted or things relating to him? mr. mccarthy: the answer to your question is, no, the president is not interfering. if you listen to the department of justice, they made the decision before the tweet ever ent out. the attorney general barr is coming before the committee as well. but there's no issue here. it's just like everything else that the democrats went to play. they do not have facts. all they have is a mission to impeach. and this is all they continue to drive. when the rest of america would like to move on from their nightmares they put us through, and let's start working on
issues that america cares most about. reporter: if democrats nominated a democratic socialist bernie sanders as their presidential nominee, will they lose the house? mr. mccarthy: i don't know what that question lies -- that lies with the american public. i think they're going to lose the house because they haven't accomplished anything. i think they're going to lose the house because they made a promise to the american public that they would be different. that they would work with the other side. that they would work on issues. and in the moment in time when they had an opportunity, they squandered it. they selected their committee chairs based upon impeachment. they focused their entire time based upon impeachment. and they failed. that's why there's an internal civil war, not just inside congress itself, i mean, i talked to many democrats who come to me, who are very upset with the speaker and with adam schiff. that adam schiff lied to them as well. started with the fruit from the poisonous tree, it was a failure from the beginning. there's no better sign than seeing that they actually lost a member of their own party, moved to the republican party.
that's happened in the past but not from the basis of moving from the majority to the minority. it's usually moving from the minority to the majority. so, yeah. that's a big indication of why they would lose. because they have not accomplished what they promised. they did not focus on it. and they lied to the american public. now, bernie sanders, think about what would be his cabinet? a.o.c., tlaib, omar? they are those who are backing him. they are ones who gave bernie sanders a rise in the polls. that's just another indication that this is not the democratic party we know of the past. this is a new socialist democratic party. and if those aren't my words, that's what a.o.c. calls herself. same as bernie sanders. and that's probably where they're going to end up in the nomination. es, sir. reporter: you said there's nothing to see, there were four prosecutors -- [indiscernible] -- that doesn't sound like there's anything to see here,
and if there isn't, isn't there a lot of cleanup in there's a perception that there was interference, that there was the thumb -- [indiscernible] -- mr. mccarthy: have we not learned anything, what we went through over the last two years? that adam schiff came to us and said he had a whistleblower and really fearful that that whistleblower would not be title -- would not be able to testify because the administration was going to stop him, and the only person who stopped the whistleblower from coming forward was adam schiff? you have the department of justice clarify saying that they made the decision before any tweet went out. so you have no proof of any information but what do you jump to? have we not jumped these hurdles enough for the last two years? i mean, eric swalwell's already moving toward impeachment. how many times will they take us ff this cliff? how many times will they fire before they ever aim or ever ave the facts?
we have found it time and again, the number of times they have lied and not had the facts before them. reporter: we have all the facts in this case? mr. mccarthy: do you have the department of justice comment? reporter: we don't know why these four prosecutors stepped aside. that's pretty strange. so i would argue -- mr. mccarthy: do you have the attorney general coming before the committee? yes. so why would you jump to a conclusion like eric swalwell for impeachment before you've heard anything about the attorney general? but you have the answer from the department of justice that said the decision was made long before there was any tweets. but lo and behold, no one wants to trust that and believe that? because you're going down the exact same path we have before. you can lie from the idea, you can just claim impeachment. instead of listening to the facts and stop this nightmare that they've been trying to put us through. listen. they promised the american public they would be different. let's work on what america wants us to work on.
reporter: on the e.r.a., what is your stance -- [indiscernible] -- equal rights amendment? mr. mccarthy: mine is the exact same as ruth bader ginsburg. she said it before and she said it just at georgetown the other day. if you want to move the equal rights amendment, you have to start over. because the time has run out, it's constitutionally doesn't hold. so they have to begin again. that's what ruth bader ginsburg said as a supreme court justice and that's what i believe. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> during this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time.
but sips you can't be everywhere, there's c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason. it's c-span. we brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. and this year we're bringing you an unfiltered view that this no. in other words, your future. so this election season, go deep, direct, and unfiltered. b yourself an make up your own mind. with c-span campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service of your television rovider. >> this is very simple, members. women want to be equal and we want it in the constitution. i am equal on this house floor with all of my male colleagues. but eni -- but when i walk out i have fewer rights and
protections than men. i rise today because the women of america are done being second class citizens. we are done being paid less for our work. done being violated with impunity. done being discriminated against for our pregnancy. done being discriminated against simply because we are women. women are not victim -- >>women are not victims in need of validation. little girls can be whatever they want to be, whether that be an astronaut, a doctor, a full-time mom working at home or a member of congress. in addition, federal law and court precedentup hold our rights. that is something to applaud and i do. however, today's legislation is problematic on several fronts. first, the resolution is unconstitutional. the time limit to pass the e.r.a. expired decades ago. congress can't go back and remove a deadline for a previous constitutional amendment initiative. the supreme court has recognized that 1972 e.r.a. expired.
and the department of justice issued a ruling saying congress may not revise a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. pretending that we can remove the time limit for passage is both futile and deceptive. secondly, if the time limit could be extended, the e.r.a. would not bring women any more rights than they currently have right now. but it would entrench the legality of abortion. we know this from court precedent by listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion on demand. in 1998, the new mexico supreme court ruled that the equal rights amendment in their state constitution requires state funding of abortion. federal courts are likely to do the same. >> it's been nearly 48 years since congress passed the equal rights amendment to the u.s. constitution. but it failed to be ratified before the final deadline.
you can watch today's u.s. house debate on repealing the e.r.a. deadline tonight at 9:00 eastern. on c-span. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> this evening we're hoping to take you live to virginia where democratic presidential candidate senator elizabeth warren is holding a town hall event. we are having some technical problems with the signal coming to us from arlington. while we work to fission it, we'll look at some of today's "washington journal." "washingt" continues. host: bipartisanship in congress , we are joined by josh gottheimer of new jersey and tom reed of new york, cochairs of the problem solvers caucus. josh, remind us what the caucus is therefore, what your -- there
for, and what your goals are? guest: it is 24 republicans and democrats. we come together every single week to figure out how to govern and put america before party and figure out ways for the country. we have all these groups that work on legislation all week long, and our job is to make sure when we get 75% of us agreeing, we stand behind a piece of legislation, two, we don't campaign each other -- against each other and we have that trust in our relationship. host: in addition to your district work, committee work, floor work, you set aside an hour to go over things you can try to find common ground on? guest: it sounds crazy, but it is really refreshing. there is plenty we actually get done every single week